Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Newsweek Lied, People Died

Media Newsweek Afghanistan Guantánamo Bay Koran

  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#21 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:21 PM

Moderator’s Helmet On:Some posts in this thread are starting to get a little too personal.  I highly suggest that everyone keeps their posts on the topic and not on your fellow posters.  Insults directed at each other will not be tolerated.  OT is a discussion forum not a place to trade insults with your fellow posters.Moderator’s Helmet Off
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#22 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:58 PM

Nonny Because you are willing to accpet that the media is not biased becasue you are a liberal is not my fault. I saw Dan Rather and folks at See BS news as well the other so called Unbiased media with an agenda.

That is based on the slant they put on their news stories(more Story than news). I have seen reports where Walter Cronkite has said in his time Dan Rather's story would not have happened.  

Now as to calling them liberal coems from polls where the media admits that a majority of the media is liberal. So it is not hard to see where with lower standards of ethics and the political biased would lead one to believe that the media is for the most part a mouthpiece for the DNC and liberal organizations.

So if it offends you that I feel that Liberweek is a name to call a news  mag of the liberal rag called Washington Post( Also called the Wash you hands after reading Post) Then I suggest you place me on ignore and maybe grow up.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#23 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 May 2005 - 10:04 PM

G1223, on May 18 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

So if it offends you that I feel that Liberweek is a name to call a news  mag of the liberal rag called Washington Post( Also called the Wash you hands after reading Post) Then I suggest you place me on ignore and maybe grow up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No no, not offended, merely amused.  As for growing up, no doubt by now that's a lost cause.  ;)  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#24 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:54 AM

MuseZack wrote:

I hate to be uncivil or anything, but here's General Richard Myers last week:

It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.

Oh dear me. Why do the facts have to be so gosh-darned rude?


Senator McCain has the obvious rejoinder:

Quote

"I'm sure the story was exploited by religious extremists," McCain said. "But that doesn't change the fact that we have to have reliable and absolutely accurate stories."
http://www.cnn.com/2...uran/index.html

-Ogami

#25 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:57 AM

Nick wrote:

I don't mean to derail this thread or anything, but I *would* like to chime in and compliment all thread participants thus far for keeping things civil. This has the potential to be a VERY hot topic, and I'd be lying if I said the mods weren't a little bit nervous, but you all have done an outstanding job keeping things polite.

Great!

-Ogami

#26 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 10:47 AM

CJ AEGIS, on May 18 2005, 10:21 PM, said:

Moderator’s Helmet On:Some posts in this thread are starting to get a little too personal.  I highly suggest that everyone keeps their posts on the topic and not on your fellow posters.  Insults directed at each other will not be tolerated.  OT is a discussion forum not a place to trade insults with your fellow posters.Moderator’s Helmet Off

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Sir, your helmet is never off, once you put it on.
Can't Touch This!!

#27 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 10:49 AM

Ogami, on May 19 2005, 02:54 AM, said:

MuseZack wrote:

I hate to be uncivil or anything, but here's General Richard Myers last week:

It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.

Oh dear me. Why do the facts have to be so gosh-darned rude?


Senator McCain has the obvious rejoinder:

Quote

"I'm sure the story was exploited by religious extremists," McCain said. "But that doesn't change the fact that we have to have reliable and absolutely accurate stories."
http://www.cnn.com/2...uran/index.html

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>




Just for the record, as of yesterday, Wednesday, the General has reversed his stance, and is now aligning with the Whitehouse.




(Edit to add)
Most of the news shows I saw yesterday seemed to agree that there peobably would have been some kind of protest or roit anyway, but that the story inflamed things. I can't be denied when many of the roiters were waving the article around.

Edited by Kosh, 19 May 2005 - 10:55 AM.

Can't Touch This!!

#28 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 10:51 AM

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

#29 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 11:10 AM

Spectacles wrote:

And as for Ishikoff, it's interesting to see him villified as a liberal Bush-hater. After all, he's the guy who broke the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair, for which he was villified (or revered in some circles) as a conservative Clinton-hater. In fact, breaking the Monica story earned him so many props among conservatives that many right-wing commentators are going out of their way to protect him in this.

Ann Coulter agrees with you, Spectacles. Here's this week's column opening:

Quote

NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!
May 18, 2005

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post — which owns Newsweek — decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate — and interesting! — than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.
(end column excerpt)

http://anncoulter.com/

#30 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 11:13 AM

Kosh wrote:

Just for the record, as of yesterday, Wednesday, the General has reversed his stance, and is now aligning with the Whitehouse.

He'd better toe the line, if he wants another general's star.  :angel:

-Ogami

#31 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 11:42 AM

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Except that despite the claims of Bush and his desire to crush free speech. We see the White House allowing for for military personel to speak in a manner which is within scope of military protocol.

So as to dealing with Nitwit....I mean Newsweek I can see where White House would be better off leaving this lying rag hanging around. It also backs up claims of a liberal bias in the media.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#32 Guldorak

Guldorak
  • Islander
  • 393 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:48 PM

Bottom line is weather or not that particular incident occurred. There are numerous other sources that unfortunately confirm that the Koran was/is being treated in an abysmal manner in other to distressed Islamic prisonners.

That said a bit of fact checking never hurt a news organization.
At least Newsweeks "lie" was unintentional unlike certain persons who started a war recently.  :hehe:

#33 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:59 PM

Quote

Ann Coulter agrees with you, Spectacles. Here's this week's column opening:

Good! Then I guess the Ishikoff-bashing will stop in this thread. ;)
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#34 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:34 PM

G1223, on May 19 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that despite the claims of Bush and his desire to crush free speech. We see the White House allowing for for military personel to speak in a manner which is within scope of military protocol.

My understanding of the American Armed forces regulations is that it forbids conduct and speech detrimental to the chain of command. Is this perhaps in error?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#35 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 03:41 PM

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 04:34 PM, said:

G1223, on May 19 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that despite the claims of Bush and his desire to crush free speech. We see the White House allowing for for military personel to speak in a manner which is within scope of military protocol.

My understanding of the American Armed forces regulations is that it forbids conduct and speech detrimental to the chain of command. Is this perhaps in error?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



I don't think it's really been tested, but there is some kind of law or rule of the military. Can't recall which.
Can't Touch This!!

#36 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 05:43 PM

G1223, on May 19 2005, 04:42 PM, said:

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Except that despite the claims of Bush and his desire to crush free speech. We see the White House allowing for for military personel to speak in a manner which is within scope of military protocol.

So as to dealing with Nitwit....I mean Newsweek I can see where White House would be better off leaving this lying rag hanging around. It also backs up claims of a liberal bias in the media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yes, it certainly does.  Except for, you know, the parts about the riots not actually being triggered by the Newsweek article and the Newsweek writer being a well-loved buddy of the VRWC and former stenographer for Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg.  Even the occasionally lucid conservative columnist David Brooks admitted that the charges of bias against Newsweek are transparent b.s.:  

"Many of my friends on the right have decided that the Newsweek episode exposes the rotten core of the liberal media. Dennis Prager, who is intelligent 99 percent of the time, writes, "Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America." Countless conservatives say the folks at Newsweek were quick to believe the atrocity tales because they share the left-wing, post-Vietnam mentality. On his influential blog, Austin Bay writes that the coastal media "presume the worst about the U.S. military - always make that presumption."

Excuse me, guys, but this is craziness. I used to write for Newsweek. I know Mike Isikoff and the editors. And I know about liberals in the media. The people who run Newsweek are not a bunch of Noam Chomskys with laptops. Not even close. Whatever might have been the cause of their mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it."


So let's see:  the Newsweek story didn't trigger the riots, the Newsweek reporter is a well known stooge of the right, and there's been tons of documentation for the article's central charges elsewhere for two years now.  What a terrific illustration of liberal media bias!
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#37 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 19 May 2005 - 06:37 PM

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 12:34 PM, said:

G1223, on May 19 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

Godeskian, on May 19 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

This does not come as a total surprise. If I was the goverment and wanted to swat a nuisance like Newsweek, I certainly wouldn't want my generals disagreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that despite the claims of Bush and his desire to crush free speech. We see the White House allowing for for military personel to speak in a manner which is within scope of military protocol.
My understanding of the American Armed forces regulations is that it forbids conduct and speech detrimental to the chain of command. Is this perhaps in error?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, not in error.  I can't cite rule or regulation, but no military member has the right of free speech where the Commander-in-Chief is concerned.  Fortunately, it was not enforced in my day, since I served during the Watergate scandal.  We had plenty to say about Nixon, and we said it.  Enforcement basically started during MonicaGate, and continues with the ironically named Iraqi Freedom.  

A while back, when newly disabled veterans started showing up at my VA hospital, some friends and I were ragging on the C-i-C in front of a young woman in a wheelchair.  Her eyes got bigger and bigger, so finally I asked her what she thought.  She hesitated, so I reminded her, you're a veteran now, you can say whatever you want.  And she did. Not a fan of the C-i-C.  :rolleyes:  

Bush doesn't want his generals disagreeing with him, and he has the clout to make it so.  However, it doesn't make for good relations with them.  :angry:

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#38 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 02:09 AM

Guldorak wrote:

Bottom line is weather or not that particular incident occurred. There are numerous other sources that unfortunately confirm that the Koran was/is being treated in an abysmal manner in other to distressed Islamic prisonners.

The "Fake but true" defense, as last seen on behalf of Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and CBS News.

When American journalists substitute facts for what they "know just must be true" about Bush and our military, they are no longer journalists. You can't create news just to fit preconceived notions, yet that is precisely what Newsweek's defenders have argued in the press.

I can just imagine the reaction had FoxNews been the one running fabricated news stories. But FoxNews has higher standards of fairness and accuracy than CBS News or Newsweek, don't they? That's got to suck for the "Faux News" bashers. (chuckle)

-Ogami

#39 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 02:11 AM

Spectacles wrote:

Good! Then I guess the Ishikoff-bashing will stop in this thread.

Not at all, Michael Ishikoff could be seen as someone just trying to get back into the "good graces" of the mainstream press, after all those articles on Clinton's tendencies. Well he certainly did this with this story, the mainstream press loves him again. I sense a "Peabody" award heading in his direction.

The mainstream media defense is, "Even if it's fake, it's true!"

#40 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 02:22 AM

MuseZack wrote:

So let's see: the Newsweek story didn't trigger the riots,

Really? From the Associated Press, May 11th:

Quote

The demonstrations began Tuesday, when protesters burned an effigy of President Bush over a report in Newsweek magazine that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay placed Qurans on toilets in order to rattle suspects, and in at least one case "flushed a holy book down the toilet."
http://www.cnn.com/2...t.ap/index.html

From the Associated Press, May 12th:

Quote

The source of anger was a brief report in the May 9 edition of Newsweek magazine that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, placed Qurans on toilets in order to rattle suspects, and in at least one case "flushed a holy book down the toilet."
http://www.cnn.com/2...t.ap/index.html

From the Associated Press, May 13th: (read all four consecutive paragraphs)

Quote

Myers cited U.S. commanders as saying the protests in Jalalabad, at least, were more about local politics than anti-American sentiment stirred up by the Newsweek report.

"It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General (Carl) Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Quran ... but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President (Hamid) Karzai and his cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan," Myers said.

"He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

However an Associated Press photo from Jalalabad showed a demonstrator holding a sign saying, "We strongly condemn insulting Quran by American army."
http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

So much for that refutation. But let's quote Newsweek itself on whether their magazine issue in question was the reason for the riots:

From the Associated Press, May 15th:

Quote

Newsweek said anger over the story spread after it was cited at a May 6 press conference in Islamabad, Pakistan, by Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and a critic of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
http://www.cnn.com/2...uran/index.html

Why go to all this effort to refute the irrefutable? Newsweek's clear goal was to attack Bush and damage the U.S. military, now Newsweek's defenders have followed suit.

-Ogami



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Newsweek, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Koran

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users